Welcome to the home of "The Question Evolution Project". There is no truth in minerals-to-man evolution. Evidence refuting evolution is suppressed by the scientific establishment, which is against the true spirit of scientific inquiry. Using an unregistered assault keyboard, articles and links to creation science resources are presented so people can obtain evidence that is not materialistic propaganda. —Established by Cowboy Bob Sorensen

Wednesday, March 22, 2017

Humans Show Design

Clinton Richard Dawkins claimed in The Blind Watchmaker that “Biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose”. You don't need your Charles Darwin Club Secret Decoder Ring© to see that this is nonsensical. (My ring even has a one-note whistle on it. It annoys Basement Cat.) Anyway, notice that he inserted his own opinion in the way he defined biology, and believes that even though things appear designed, that is not the case. Livescience does not seem to share that opinion, but they do pay homage to Darwin, what with being a secular site and all. In the movie Duck Soup, Chicolini asked Mrs. Teasdale, "Who ya gonna believe, me or your own eyes?" That makes me want to ask who you're going to believe, the pronouncements of evolutionists, or your own sensibilities?

Humans are clearly designed
Credit: Pixabay / HeatherPaque
We see a great deal of science supporting creation and refuting slime-to-slumlord evolution, and how both creationists and evolutionists interpret evidence according to their worldviews and presuppositions. Let's step back a mite and look at things in a simpler way, but still acknowledging how we see things with our own eyes.
I once designed a small knife which consisted of a slender rod with a tiny razor-sharp blade at the end. One of my students came across the knife and started using it to cut up cards.

I explained to him that the knife was for something far more important—for carrying out life-saving operations on newly born boys who have a blocked bladder valve. If the student had looked closely at the intricate design of the knife, he would have known it was no ordinary knife.

Many today make the same mistake concerning the purpose of human life.
To finish reading, click on "Humans: Purposely Designed". 

Tuesday, March 21, 2017

Varying Speed of Light to Rescue the Big Bang

Interesting how believers in deep time have shallow standards — two of them. It was a joke when creationists suggested that one means animals used to spread around the world was through "rafts", but it was all right when evolutionists saddled up and rode along. The disputed research of Barry Setterfield into the slower speed of light received ridicule from secularists, but when Big Bang proponents postulate a varying speed of light, that's science. See? Just two examples of their double standards.

Patchwork Big Bang universe rescuing devices
Credits: Modified from Pixabay / CandaceHunter with NASA/ESA
The Big Bang concept has never worked. Whenever a "yeah, but..." objection was raised, a rescuing device was sewn on, such as inflation, dark matter, dark energy, dark lady, dark whatever, other odd things; the original Big Bang has little resemblance to the patchwork quilt that is presented as cosmological "science" today. Much of this has to do with the horizon problem, which continually proves to be insurmountable for deep time Big Bang speculators. A new concept is that the speed of light was much faster back at the beginning of the universe, and this is playing with the speed of sound and the speed of gravity as well. Testable, like real science requires? They say it is, but not yet. That's unscientific and contradictory, old son. But then, cosmology itself and cosmic evolution are not really science. Should we be surprised at the lengths and self-deception in which people will indulge for the sake of admitting that the universe was created recently?
A recent paper by Niayesh Afshordi and João Magueijo asserts that they have discovered a testable cosmology wherein during a “critical” cosmological phase of the early universe the maximal speed of propagation of matter (and hence light) was enormously much faster than the current speed of light (c) and faster than the speed of gravity, which in Einstein’s theory is the canonical speed c.

They revisit what has become to be known as varying speed of light (VSL) models, in contrast to the now popular cosmic inflation models. They believe light traveled much faster just after the big bang than it does now and have developed a mathematical model of a big bang universe only a miniscule fraction of a second after the alleged hot beginning of the universe.
To finish reading, click on "Does the new much-faster-speed-of-light theory fix the big bang’s problems?

Monday, March 20, 2017

Bird Identity Theft and Passwords

Seems a mite interesting that some words have fallen by the wayside to some extent, then became somewhat reinvented for use in modern technology. F'rinstance, the first time I came across the word browser, I associated it with going shopping: "Can I help you?"..."No, just browsing". For that matter, the concept of identity theft existed since way back when (think of the pseudepigrapha), but the actual phrase is fairly recent.

A password is something you type for certain kinds of computer access, but was spoken for access to a Prohibition-era speakeasy, and back even further in the olden days. The word hijack may have originated during Prohibition as well. Someone driving a load of illegal hooch has someone come up and say, "Hi, Jack", shove a smoke wagon in his face, then make off with the booze for his own speakeasy. Later, hijacking was associated with taking over airlines, and also what Darwinists do to science.

"Have you been drinking, Cowboy Bob?"

No thanks, it's too early. Cash me later, howbow dah? Actually, I'm having a bit of fun with word history.

"Get on with it!"

Horsfeld's bronze cuckoo engages in avian identity theft
It may be a surprise to learn that Horsfeld's bronze cuckoo can be a real jerk
Credit: Wikimedia Commons / Aviceda (CC BY-SA 3.0)
We can use contemporary words and phrases to describe something observed in nature. In the Land Down Under, sneaky Horsfeld's bronze cuckoos lay their eggs in the nests of "the least faithful birds in the world", superb fairywrens (also called blue wrens), and the interlopers hijack the nests. But the fairywrens have a way of teaching passwords for feeding to their offspring even before they're hatched to deter avian identity theft. Some owlhoots are likely to say that this is an example of evolution. Not hardly! Adaptation, maybe. Or even a design feature given by our Creator. Calling it "evolution" is an illegitimate description.
In this fallen world, even bird households have troubles. One family problem encountered by many bird parents is the nest-security issue of brood parasites, a sneaky form of fowl “home invasion.”

Brood parasitism does not involve parasitic worms or bugs. Rather, it features a different kind of parasite—a freeloading bird family that imposes its baby upon a “host” family. The host family is thereafter burdened with the costs of nurturing the uninvited freeloader. Worse, the invasive guest often competes aggressively with legitimate nestlings for food and shelter.
To finish reading, click on "Pushy Parasites and Parental Passwords". 

Saturday, March 18, 2017

Musings on the Ken Ham - Bill Nye Unofficial "Second Debate"

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen

First of all, I'll allow that I'm biased regarding Bill Nye the Scientism Guy (like so), because of his atheistic anti-creation activism, abuse of logic, and militant advocacy for his version of global climate change. Even so, I shall endeavor to be as objective as I can in this article about the unofficial "second debate" between Nye and Ken Ham at the Ark Encounter [1]. I was annoyed while watching it, and one time, a Nye fallacy actually made me LOL.

A bit of background is in order. Bill Nye made vituperous attacks on creationism, and against Answers in Genesis in particular. Two AiG scientists challenged him to a debate [2], especially Dr. Georgia Purdom. He ignored them. Is it because "the Science Guy" is not an actual scientist? He earned a Bachelor of Science, but went no further in his formal education. [3] Eventually, the formal Ham-Nye debate was established [4]. I wrote an article about it, which included several links to reviews and commentaries [5]. In the more recent engagement, he called AiG scientists, including Dr. Purdom, "incompetent". If that is so, why dodge her debate challenge? He should have been able to easily put her away if that was so. Also, he's in no position to call a scientist "incompetent".

I'd like to emphasize something about the first debate: it had a dreadful format. Many debates nowadays have "cross examination" or "interrogation" rounds where there is more interaction between the debaters, and the Ham-Nye debate had none. In addition, the format allowed Bill Nye to engage in the elephant hurling fallacy [6] and employ other disingenuous tactics, such as asking questions of Ken Ham that could not be answered in the two-minute response time allowed at that point in the debate.

Ken Ham Bill Nye "second debate"
Screenshot from Nye/Ham The Second Debate, courtesy of Answers in Genesis
The "second debate" was not an actual debate, but rather a discussion from opposing viewpoints. Here, we had interaction between Ham and Nye without any kind of formal structure or moderator. The encounter was later streamed, and is available on Ken Ham's Facebook Page and YouTube [7].

Here, we have to hold the reigns loosely on what we expect from each participant. Although both parties probably prepared themselves with what they wanted to say, the whole shooting match was done "on the fly": planned remarks can be forgotten, and there were distractions galore. One minor quibble I have with Ken is that he said "one creation museum". Incorrect, since there are several creation museums, but I reckon that he was meaning that there is one creation museum with a full-sized Noah's Ark. Another small problem I have is the use of the term born again. Yes, many (if not most) Christians use it, but the more accurate translation is born from above. My last item against Ken is that he left out something that he knows: Noah could have hired help to construct his Ark, it wasn't necessarily only eight people building it. I'm sure both Ham and Nye thought of things that they meant to say after everything was said and done.

I've read comments where people wanted Ken to throw down on Bill and give him so many facts that Nye would fall on his knees and repent. Doesn't work that way, old son. As was evident in the formal debate, this engagement demonstrated that the origins controversy is not so much about facts and evidence, but the worldviews used by which they are interpreted. Ham would attempt to explain things many times, and Nye was not willing to listen. In fact, he would do something that gets many people banned from The Question Evolution Project: change the subject and attack.

My impression is that from the get-go, it was easy to see that Bill Nye was fastuous, on the prod, and looking to score points in a "Gotcha!" game against Ken Ham by giving him a verbal slap down. Several times, Nye turned to onlookers to preach about the glories of science, even though he admitted that it was a philosophy. Then he'd contradict himself. He would say that we know, speaking for scientists in general. ("We"? He is not a scientist, but a sciolist who played like a scientist on a children's television show [8].) He disagreed with Ham on almost everything, and did not even want to admit that the Ark Encounter was well crafted. Ken made it clear that AE was not intended to be seaworthy, nor was it constructed with tools of the era (which would be speculative), but Nye kept gnawing on the bone that AE had concrete and steel, and was not seaworthy.

Bill Nye was insisting that his version of climate change was of paramount importance, even though he does not understand it himself [9]. He endorses criminal prosecution of "climate change dissenters" [10] — I disremember if this is Stalinist or fascistic. He gets mighty cranky when confronted on his weaknesses on that climate change thing [11]. Regarding biblical creation, Nye said to Ham, "I would prefer that you weren't indoctrinating young people with anti-science", yet Nye is the one indoctrinating children, especially with falsehoods about climate change [12]. He kept saying that he is "skeptical", but that is disingenuous, because he has his mind made up that the Bible is untrue and that biblical creation science is false, even though he has insufficient knowledge.

Nye is opposed to teaching children about creation science, calling it "indoctrination". (This can be called "playing the children card", which is similar to playing the fascist card [13]; both are ways to manipulate emotions.) He also encouraged children to attend universities and secular museums — which are strongholds of materialistic indoctrination based on opinions and interpretations of evidence. Nye calls them "facts". Not hardly!  Mayhaps he wants secular education systems to have free reign with indoctrination. Essentially, creationists are wrong and Nye's view is right because science.

We're all descendants from Martians, said Nye. No evidence for this, but his science of the gaps philosophy insists that his view on this is valid because someday it will be proven. That's not science. He had the nerve to tell a Christian girl, "You have a simplistic worldview". In another instance in the last few minutes, a little girl asked Ham a question about how God did his creating. Nye interrupted for a moment, then after Ken finished his answer, Bill tried to override what Ham said with his naturalistic Scientism. Bill Nye is being fitted for a millstone even as you read this [14].

Bill had numerous logical fallacies, and I hope people who watch the video will keep an eye out for logical fallacies. Something that is extremely important in debates as well as other serious discussions is to know what the other side actually believes and teaches [15]. In both engagements, Bill did not do this, and engaged in straw man fallacies. In one notably low moment, Nye engaged in another ridicule, asking why the money spent on the Ark was not used in more productive ventures. That really puts a burr under my saddle, because not only is it a red herring, it is just plain vacuous [16]. 

Elsewhere, he used the fallacy of irrelevant thesis. When Ken asked about information and DNA coming from materialism, Nye used the false thesis fallacy that people are the proof that it happened. That really took the rag off the bush, and it's where I laughed. Yes, look for not only the aforementioned elephant hurling, but more red herrings, argument from incredulity, poisoning the well, circumstantial ad hominems, genetic fallacy, and more.

I took several pages of notes, but I'm cognating that this article is plenty long enough. Ken Ham showed considerable patience and tolerance, far more than I could have. His overall goal in engaging Bill Nye (and all of the Answers in Genesis ministries) is to uphold the gospel message. This is the goal of other creation science ministries as well. He was not there to smack down Nye, and I know of some people who are disappointed that he did not use an evidential machine gun. But then, he'd be like Nye, wouldn't he?

EDIT 3-19-2017: I stopped looking at my notes too soon. Bill Nye said that he had never heard of historical science before he met Ken Ham. He should know his own evolutionary history, as the term historical science is not unique to Ham, nor did it originate with him. One notable example of its usage is by Ernst Mayr.

Bill Nye was arrogant and condescending, and it seemed to me that he expected people at the Ark Encounter to act like Donall and Conall, who said to Patrick, "Remember that we're simple people, without your fancy education and books and learning" [17]. Nye is not a "science guy", but is a propagandist for atheism, Scientism, evolutionism, anthropogenic climate change, abortion [18] (yes, I know, not supposed to bring new material into the conclusion, but I couldn't help myself), and other leftist interests. If people want science, logic, or to be heard, they should not be going to Bill Nye. Further, people who want to know what biblical creationists actually believe and teach (such as the "Debate Answers" [19]), they should go to the sources instead of to anti-creationists with agendas. Despite what Nye and others who ride for the Scientism brand want, some of us believe in offsetting the indoctrination of our children by secularists, teaching biblical truth to our children.

I'll conclude with a video I captioned after the formal debate:

Friday, March 17, 2017

Not Convinced by the Facts

In a January 2017 article, atheist Michael Shermer offered suggestions on dealing with people who are not convinced by the facts, preferring to cling to their worldviews. Interesting that owlhoots like Shermer consider atheism the embodiment of logic and reason, yet demonstrate disdain for actually using logic and reason. It's not a matter of facts, but of interpretations of facts.

Credit: Modified from Freeimages / Kenn Kiser
People can assert things they consider to be facts, such as, "St. Patrick drove the snakes out of Ireland", or, "St. Patrick used the shamrock to illustrate the Trinity". Sorry, Seamus, those are legends that people consider factual.

Going further, someone can claim, "This fossil is fifty million years old, that's a fact." Nope. It's an interpretation of the evidence based on presuppositions. Atheists and evolutionists interpret evidence while wearing their Darwin spectacles that distort what they understand. People like Shermer have a starting point that presupposes their materialistic evolutionary worldview is "reality", and have no respect for others who have a different starting point. Those of us who are biblical creationists start with the truth of the Word of God, and interpret the evidence quite differently. They don't cotton to how observed evidence actually supports biblical creation, either. Let me flip this Shermer thing upside down: Why do atheists and evolutionists reject creation and the Bible despite evidence? Because they want to.

Used under Fair Use for educational purposes
In the article linked below, Shermer used several fallacies, including appeal to motive, straw man, and others. He not only ignores the underlying reasons that people are not convinced by facts, but also, atheists and evolutionists do not use the advice he offers. Of course not, they are in rebellions against the Creator!
An article recently appeared on Scientific American titled “How To Convince Someone When Facts Fail: Why Worldview Threats Undermine Evidence.” The author, Michael Shermer, writes,
Have you ever noticed that when you present people with facts that are contrary to their deepest held beliefs they always change their minds? Me neither. In fact, people seem to double down on their beliefs in the teeth of overwhelming evidence against them. The reason is related to the worldview perceived to be under threat by the conflicting data.
He provides several examples of what he means by this, including,
Creationists, for example, dispute the evidence for evolution in fossils and DNA because they are concerned about secular forces encroaching on religious faith.
He says “proponents' deepest held worldviews were perceived to be threatened by skeptics, making facts the enemy to be slayed.” But do creationists really view facts as the “enemy to be slayed”? Well, let’s turn this thinking around on him. What about those who hold to evolutionary ideas? Do evolutionists listen to facts when they are presented by creationists? Or do they “double down on their beliefs” and “dispute the evidence?” Of course they dispute the evidence because it goes against their deeply held worldview.
To finish reading why Mike is inconsistent and doesn't understand worldviews, click on "Why Aren’t People Convinced by Facts?"

Thursday, March 16, 2017

More Conflicts in Snake Evolution Stories

Like so many other tales told by proponents of common-ancestor evolution, the lineage of the snake has been weak at best. For the most part, fossils of snakes have been quite a bit like snakes that are living today. A few fossils have been presented as transitional forms, but not without controversy among evolutionists.

Snake evolution, python same as its fossilized ancestors
Credit: US National Park Service
The wild-eyed science press, in their ongoing quest for sensational stories (and to bolster the secular science industry), has been mighty unhelpful by leaving out pertinent details and presenting fake science images. Further, one of the fossils shows what appear to be hind legs. I can't rightly recollect a snake doing any strolling these days, just slithering. Yet some evolutionists insist that a loss of features is evidence of advancing upward evolution. Not hardly! That's devolution. The great irony for secularists is that the fossils actually affirm creation.
Until early 2015, the ‘earliest’ date reported for a fossil snake was less than 100 Ma old. In January, a team led by University of Alberta (Canada) paleontologist Professor Michael Caldwell described fossils of four new species, in Nature Communications, which they claimed extended the snake fossil record backwards by about 70 Ma to the Middle Jurassic.

‘Earliest’ snake fossils

The new species reported were:
  • Parviraptor estesi (from Dorset, England)—145–140 Ma
  • Diablophis gilmorei (from Colorado, USA)—155 Ma
  • Portugalophis lignites (from Guimarota, Portugal)—157–152 Ma
  • Eophis underwoodi (from Oxfordshire, England)—167 Ma.
The skull anatomy of all four of these ‘ancient’ snakes, they say, is similar to that of both modern snakes and other fossil snakes. Of course, this is unexpected. However, the skull structure of previously reported fossil snakes, Pachyrhachis problematicus and Haasiophis terrasanctus, also surprised evolutionary researchers, resembling that of modern boas and pythons (deemed ‘advanced’).
To read the rest, click on "Standard snake evolution story stymied by spate of fossil discoveries". 

Wednesday, March 15, 2017

Materialism, Evolutionism, and Morality

Today, we have a couple of related items for you. Materialists are unable to account for a sense of purpose, and have no ultimate foundation for morality. Some believe morality has its source in evolution, but that simply doesn't work. They have two minds, seeking a sense of purpose, but also claiming that "reality" dictates that when we die, that's it. Atheists agree to an arbitrary definition of "reality" as materialism with no God. This concept is based on their own presuppositions — as if they had some kind of right or moral imperative to define reality itself. Seems a mite ironic. Another irony is that anti-creationists need creationists to give them a false sense of purpose, as exhibited in their secularist jihads.

Materialism, Evolutionism, and Morality
Made at Atom Smasher
Secularists have been doing some research on areas of the brain to see what lights up (so to speak), and are seeing that those who have a sense of purpose — a large-scale purpose — have happier lives. Biblically, materialism is inconsistent, incoherent, and irrational. Only the biblical worldview (beginning from the very first verse) makes sense of the human condition.
Studies show that having a sense of purpose enhances mental and physical health. The problem for materialists is how to conjure it up out of matter in motion.

New Scientist, the staunchly atheist rag in the UK, is no friend of creation, conservatism, or the Bible. Once in awhile, though, they do have to face reality. Reporter Teal Burrell recently contributed a piece to New Scientist about “A meaning to life: How a sense of purpose can keep you healthy.” Can she get from atoms to purpose?
To read the rest of this one, click on "Can Materialism Provide a Sense of Purpose?" Be sure y'all come back for the other item.

From the Irony Board, when secularists complain about lack of morality and ethics in their own ranks, they are appealing to the God they know is real, but are suppressing the truth (Rom. 1:18-23). When an evolutionist lies, cheats, steals, plagiarizes, or whatever else, he or she is being consistent with a professed worldview. After all, the fittest survive, right? They're just trying to survive better.

Using abundant question begging, materialists use their preconceptions of evolution and extrapolate what is seen in nature into applications for human behavior. That's mighty strange, but then, evolutionism is actually a pagan death cult that uses some scientific principles, so a pantheistic approach to the behaviors of critters and various organisms is in keeping with their worldview.

The Bible says that we have all sinned (Rom. 3:23), all deserve death (Rom. 6:23, John 3:18-29, James 1:15), and the remedy is salvation through Jesus Christ (John 3:16-17, Eph. 2:8-9). Those who reject God do not have this hope and ultimate purpose, and find excuses for sinful behaviors based on activities in nature, and the presumption of evolution.
Name a vice, and Darwinians will be there to rationalize it on evolutionary grounds. They claim proud ownership of the Seven Deadly Sins.

Timothy D. Clark preached a fiery sermon to the readers of Nature last week, warning about the alarming rise of dishonesty among scientists. “Too many researchers make up or massage their data,” he says. It’s not a small problem, either. You can almost hear the pounding on the pulpit:
I hope you'll read the rest of the article. Just click on "Evolutionary Materialism Promotes Deadly Sins". 

Tuesday, March 14, 2017

Language Itself Testifies of the Creator

Language itself testifies of God the CreatorHere is another article that I read with reluctance and ended up fascinated. I'll allow that
linguistics can seem dreadfully dull for some people, but this is more of a big picture aspect. And we're not going to be examining things like the dangling pluperfect indefinite participle or whatever.

A very basic definition of language is that it is a means of communication, and languages are not merely verbal. There are written forms of verbal languages, braille raised dots for the blind, sign language for the hearing impaired, and more. There needs to be some degree of uniformity and consistency for a language to be useful. How many times has someone inserted some slang that you've had to ask for a definition or look it up if you had not experienced it before? Some slang words become established in a language because of agreement and acceptance, but many drop off (such as, fortunately, "gag me with a spoon"). The gesture I received while driving the other day could be considered an unofficial bit of sign language because those sending as well as receiving know what it means. 

Then we develop languages for our electronic devices, big and small. Computer languages and graphic user interfaces are complex, but they are reduced down to binary for the computers to use: ones and zeroes, yes or no, on or off. Signals are sent out and computers communicate with other computers, who build things back up again for humans. I'm typing in English, you're reading it in English, but there were many translation steps in between. A step can be added when someone uses electronic translation of a Web page or site into another language.

It takes a logical mind to understand and use a language, whether interpersonal communication or for various computers. We understand our vocabulary, put words together to communicate greater concepts than the individual words alone can communicate, and we can glean a meaning of an unfamiliar word from the context. In our communication, we also select from words with similar meanings if we wish to use a word with a more positive or negative connotation in our conversation. 

The most mirific language of all does not have anything to do with linguistics per se. It is the specified complexity of DNA, which is lining up atoms and molecules, as well as operating molecular repair stations withing our cells. Those, and far more. Proponents of lactobacilli-to-linguist evolution are unable to come up with a believable model for the origin of language, partly because it involves minds that must be able to use a language properly. The coded language of DNA makes matters far worse for evolutionists, old son.

Basement Cat looking intent
To make matters worse for evolutionists, words are not material in nature. The are non-material, like numbers. If I post a picture of Basement Cat, and then delete it (you only see the placeholder where the picture used to be), the cat remains unaffected. Similarly, take a dry erase marker and write "5" on a dry erase board. Then, erase it. A bit more, I can still see it — there you go. But "fiveness" still exists. Words, numbers, laws of logic, concepts are not material, but they are very real. Ultimately, they testify of God the Creator as described in the Bible! How did God create? He spoke.
Many arguments to demonstrate the reasonableness of God’s existence have been advanced over past millennia. On this issue, the biblical record maintains that clear evidence of God’s reality resides in the natural realm all around us. This evidence is so plain, the record claims, that no human being can fail to have awareness of God’s existence (Rom 1:20). This paper calls attention to a category of reality that provides especially powerful support for God’s existence. Our focus is upon the phenomenon of language. We begin from our own subjective experience of this phenomenon and then extend our considerations to the realm of the material world around us. Because language is so integral to our own mental processes and so intuitive in the way we relate to other human beings, most of us never pause to analyze just what is occurring when we think, write, speak, or process what we read or hear others say. Therefore, a crucial first step in this discussion is to establish clearly what the term language entails.
To finish reading this extremely interesting article, click on "A Linguistic Argument for God’s Existence".

Monday, March 13, 2017

Climate Models and the Wet Sahara

Way back when, the Sahara was not the arid pile of sand that is seen today. Instead, it was a bit on the damp side, with evidence of creatures that favored water, and even human inhabitants. Satellites show that under the sand, there used to be a huge network of rivers back then. Now, that's a puzzler.

Sahara was not always a desert
Credit: USDA / E.L. Skidmore (usage does not imply endorsement of this site)
Secular scientists try to invoke the discredited Milankovitch astronomical theory to explain changes in Earth's climate, with unconvincing arguments. The better explanation is that during the Ice Age caused by the Genesis Flood, there were several conditions that brought greater rainfall.
Scientists from the University of Arizona recently announced that what is now the Sahara desert was once wet and green and extended as far north as the Mediterranean Sea.

The scientists examined chemical clues found within leaf waxes preserved in four marine sediment cores located off the northwestern African coast. Plants experience subtle changes in the chemical composition of their wax, depending upon the wetness or dryness of the climate. Because leaf wax washes into the oceans, it can be preserved in sediment cores extracted from the ocean floor. Hence, this team of researchers used wax chemical clues found within these cores to infer past climate conditions in the Sahara.
To read the rest, click on "More Evidence of a Wet Sahara". 

Saturday, March 11, 2017

Surprising Intelligence in Small Packages

Way back when, there was a myth that people with bigger brains were more intelligent than others. Then there's the observation where someone can pay mucho dinero for higher education, but are dreadful at simple logic. I can name some people that believe they're the brightest bulbs in the chandelier but are actually quite dim, but never mind about that now. So, how does this brain size and intelligence thing work in smaller creatures?

Bumblebees and others have small brains but surprising intelligence.
Credit: Pixabay / DrScythe
The brain of a bumblebee is about the size of a sesame seed. Does that explain the time I got stung by one that flew into the open window of my delivery truck, smacked into me, then stung me when it wasn't my fault? Those bad boys pack a punch. But I digress. These fuzzy little critters are capable of learning, and others can learn by watching their fellow travelers.

Bats are masters of echolocation, but what happens in a crowd? Seems like there would be a heap of interference and collisions happening, but they dial down the noise. In fact, they're being studied for biomimetics purposes: wireless communication and interference.

We looked at how chickens can be manipulative as well as intelligent a spell back. Their intelligence has been underestimated for ages, but we've learned that they know about numbers and have reasoning abilities.

Then there's the intelligence of something without a brain: slime mold. Colonial fungi can actually learn and share information. Then, when they split apart, the separate colonies are better for the experience.

Our Creator has endowed aspects of his creation with levels of intelligence and communication that many of us never dreamed was possible. Ask a Darwinist for an explanation, and you'll get a nice story based on conjecture and assumptions, but not science.

More details on the teasers listed about can be found at "Animals Can Be Smarter Than You Think".

Friday, March 10, 2017

Ancient Trees and Biblical Timelines

Biblical creationists often need to deal with tendentious evidences for Earth's alleged old age, including radiometric dating, ice core samples, distant starlight, and others. These have been dealt with by creationists in many places (several of which are linked on this site). Another "proof" for Earth's age is that of trees, since the Genesis Flood, about 4,500 years ago, would have ripped them up and they'd have to start over. Yet some are claimed to be substantially older.

Old sequoia General Sherman and the Genesis Flood
"General Sherman" sequoia credit: US National Park Service,
usage does not imply endorsement of site contents
Some folks say that certain trees are dated at 30,000 years, so the timeline of the Bible must be wrong. Ofttimes, people are using outdated material and incomplete material. For example, the General Sherman sequoia pictured above was thought to be in excess of 6,000 years, but has been revised down to an uncertain approximation of 2,150 years. Many believe that these ages are calculated simply by counting tree rings (dendrochronology), but none of them have yielded such long ages by that method alone — and none exceed the date of the Flood. Other dubious time calculation factors have been added to yield preconceived results. Try as they might, the Flood did happen, and spurious "evidence" cannot erase this fact.
High in the cold, dry air of the White Mountains of California, just north of the infamous and inhospitable Death Valley, lives possibly the world’s oldest living organism. It’s a Bristlecone Pine tree, given the Biblical name of ‘Old Methuselah’ due to its estimated age (from counting the number of its tree rings) of 4,723 years. Amazingly, this tree would have been over 2,000 years old when Jesus Christ walked the Earth.
I won't be a sap and leave you out on a limb. You can finish reading the article by clicking on "Patriarchs of the forest". Although from 2002, it still has some very interesting information. Be sure to see the "Related Articles" linked below it for further information.

Thursday, March 9, 2017

Threading RNA Into the Ribosome Needle

People who deal with sewing or looms, whether on a personal or an industrial level, know that precision is required. My wife has longed for a self-threading needle, as have probably many other people. Sewing machines and looms break down and need maintenance. Sure would be mighty fine if the things performed their own maintenance, wouldn't it?

RNA and ribosomes like needle and thread
Credit: Morguefile / cohdra
Imagine something similar on a much smaller scale. Remember those microscopes you used in school? Not good enough. This is about an aspect of our internal self-repair, where ribosomes correct faulty RNA (which is a good friend of DNA) so we can continue living. The intricate design and specified complexity involved is another reason to reject common-ancestor evolution, and realize that the evidence supports biblical creation.
What does it take to slip a tiny thread through the eye of a needle and then use that thread to accomplish a purpose? Chimpanzees and other apes can’t do this. It takes fine, precise motion. Three examples of using needle and thread point to God as a super-genius Creator. . .

Did God make any threading machines? . . . Yes, He did, and without them our bodies would die in minutes. But His machines handle “threads” many times smaller than a human hair. If an RNA molecule, which carries the information needed to construct a protein, is like a thread, then the ribosome is like a needle’s eye. The slender RNA winds through the ribosome, which helps translate the RNA’s information.
To read the entire article, click on "God's Threading Machines". 


Wednesday, March 8, 2017

Definitely Dinosaur Protein

One of the items that the bosses at the Darwin Ranch have filed away in the locked back room under Try Not to Discuss is soft tissues from ancient critters. Although we've been hearing about dinosaur soft tissues for a spell, it's not such recent news as some people may think. Just that the more recent events about dinosaur soft tissues have rightly exploded since that business with Mary Schweitzer, Mark Armitage, and others.

undoubtedly dinosaur proteins in remains
Triceratops at the Dinosaur Journey Museum credit: US Dept of Transportation / aschweigert
Some uninformed but loyal evolutionists have tried to deny the dinosaur soft tissue problem (even lying about it in forums and on social media), since it's a serious problem for them: soft tissues and proteins cannot last for millions of years. That means dinosaurs have not been extinct as long as their dogma requires, and gives another indication that Earth was created much more recently than evolution requires. Excuses have been made, such as the "iron as a preservative" concept, which smacks of desperation and illustrates bad science. Even though Mary Schweitzer believes in long ages, she's willing to present the conclusive evidence that the dinosaur proteins are original material.
Mary Schweitzer’s team reports the most rigorous techniques yet to certify collagen in dinosaur bone. But will evolutionists finally give up their beloved millions of years?

Since 2005 and even earlier, Dr. Mary Schweitzer of North Carolina State has boldly charged against fossilized dogma, proving the existence of soft tissue in dinosaur bones. She still believes they are millions of years old, but has faced criticism and (more often) silence from her stubborn, incredulous colleagues. This response hasn’t fazed her. If anything, it has stimulated her to prove she’s right. Now, the latest press release from NC State announces, “80-Million-Year-Old Dinosaur Collagen Confirmed.” Here’s their interpretation that rescues long ages by assertion:
To read the rest, click on "No Doubts Left: It’s Dinosaur Protein". 

Tuesday, March 7, 2017

Is the Echidna One of God's Pranks?

There's a critter down Australia and New Guiney way that is sometimes called the spiny anteater. It's spiny, but not with sharp pointy quills like a porcupine. Also, it does eat ants somewhat, but is not closely related to anteaters. Seems gentle enough, but it's a protected wild animal, so don't be getting a notion to make a pet of one. Maybe consider a hedgehog and name it Spiny Norman, since there's a bit of resemblance. Anyway, the subject is the echidna (I kid you not, it's pronounced ee-KID-nuh), and is baffling to evolutionists, like its cousin the platypus.

Echidna puzzle for evolution
Credit: Pixabay / PublicDomainImages
The classification for yon beastie is a monotreme. It's a mammal, but lays eggs. Yes, really. Read up on its alleged evolution and you get a whole whack of storytelling but no actual scientific evidence. Then they deny the Creator and resort to the nonsensical "convergent evolution" tale. Because of its unique characteristics and those of the platypus, it's not difficult to be suspicioning that God has a sense of humor and put some of these things on Earth to cause evolutionists to say, "I find this very troubling".
You might think that spiky little animal waddling along the forest floor is a porcupine. But it has a long, sticky tongue and it digs for ants, so maybe it’s some kind of anteater. Nope? Well, it’s a mammal, at least, right? Wait—it lays eggs. Mammals don’t lay eggs. So what is this thing?

The echidna seems to break all the rules. It’s a mammal, but it lays eggs. It’s warm-blooded, but it has a low body temperature. It lives on land, but it detects food like some fish do. And, like so many other rule-breakers, such as the platypus, the echidna settled in Australia.
To read the rest, click on "Echidna—Outback Oddity" (audio version also available).


Monday, March 6, 2017

Moving the Cosmic Goalposts

The Big Bang and cosmic evolution have many things going for them — on paper. Start with some assumptions, do some calculations, make impressive pronouncements, let the sycophantic science media get the bit in their teeth and gallop to the public. But do not, under any circumstances, let actual science interfere with grandstanding. Evidence is bad medicine for speculations in secular cosmogony and cosmology.

Big Bang and new theory of gravity
Credit: NASA/JPL-Caltech
Since observed evidence causes problems for secular cosmogony concepts, secular scientists come up with rescuing devices. Dark matter, dark energy, dark other things that have never been observed but look good for calculations abound, and "explain" why spiral galaxies hold their shape after assumed zillions of years. These things have not been observed, only inferred according to presuppositions (see "Dark Matter Remains Missing"). Another rescuing device is to come up with new physics, and even find a new theory of gravity that makes things all better for the Big Bang. I reckon that this is the fallacy of moving the goalposts on a grand scale. By doing these things, they're tacitly admitting that the Big Bang is wrong. Cowboy up, people! The evidence y'all deny testifies that the universe was created much more recently than you want to believe.
Occasionally we read in the popular press, especially online, that someone has come up with a new theory of gravity. Why is that even necessary if the current theory describing the evolution of the universe is so correct?

The standard ΛCDM big bang cosmology is derived from an application of certain non-biblical boundary conditions to the physics of Einstein’s general relativity theory. But when that was applied to the universe as a whole, two problems developed for the secular model. One is the need to add in dark energy (or the cosmological constant, Λ (Lambda), to Einstein’s field equations) and the other is the need for a significant amount of invisible cold dark matter (CDM).
To finish reading, click on "Why look for a new theory of gravity if the big bang cosmology is correct?" Also worth seeing is "The Expanding Big Bang Fairy Tale".


Saturday, March 4, 2017

Creationists and Credentialing

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen

There seems to be a fine line between rejecting material because someone dislikes the source (the genetic fallacy), and using caution because the source is questionable. Some owlhoots fallaciously balk at learning science from creationists because creationists do not support materialistic presuppositions. Other times, material from individuals is questioned because they lack the proper credentials.

Some creation scientists have dubious credentials
Image credit: digitalart at FreeDigitalPhotos.net
Readers of this Weblog and The Question Evolution Project may notice that several creationary mavericks are absent from the corral that I choose for reliable resources. I'll allow that sometimes I'm a mite skittish when atheopaths are looking for excuses to discredit individuals or organizations since I also want to make good material available for readers and viewers, but do not want to give detractors fuel for their fires.

Don't disunderstand me. There are very intelligent people who have no advanced degrees that have studied their material and present it accurately, and are not claiming to be more credentialed than they really are. My problem is that there are some individuals, such as Kent Hovind, Don Patton, Carl Baugh, and others who seem to be sincere about presenting creationary material, but are using doubtful credentials to bolster their credibility.

One anti-creationist claim is that a few of the numerous people in creation science circles have doctorates from unaccredited universities. If an American college or university did not go through the accreditation process, that does not necessarily mean that the program is substandard. (Similarly, a scientific paper may pass a peer review process, but that does guarantee it to be factual or even useful.) One simple reason that a small Christian school is not accredited is that the cost to obtain and maintain the accreditation can be prohibitive.

I'm ambivalent about relying on this credentialing business as to whether or not to use material from a dubious doctor. People may hear "not credentialed" and think, "Oh, it must be a bad place, and the creationist is a fraud." Not hardly! For example, James White has a doctorate from Columbia Evangelical Seminary, a non-traditional school. He has responded to critics on this, but nobody can legitimately challenge his knowledge of his material. Some of the creationists in question have their doctorates from "degree mills", such as Kent Hovind's "degree" from Patriot University in Colorado.

Aside from the questionable credentials of a few people (several of them are no longer active), I shy away from them if more reputable creationists and creationary organizations find their material to be lacking. Sometimes, the doubted creationists presents material that anti-creationists gleefully ridicule, but then, they ridicule just about anything that shows evolution to be the fraud that it is. Yes, there are some "evidences" and "arguments" that creationists should avoid (Answers in Genesis disagrees with Carl Baugh about the Paluxy River tracks), but there are a few arguments on the "get that out of Dodge" list that some creationists want to see included on the "use this material" list again.

Wikipedia, the biased, unreliable go-to source for atheists and anti-creationists, had an interesting "tell" in a post about Baugh: "Both scientists and creationists have criticized Baugh's claims." See that? They are using loaded terminology to basically say that scientists are not creationists, and vice versa. That lie is easily refuted.

Unfortunately, uninformed people condition others who are also uninformed that uncredentialed is immediately a bad thing. Because of public perceptions as well as the dubious teachings of some individuals, my recommendation is to be very careful who you endorse. If the material presented is in your area of understanding or expertise and you believe it is worthwhile, then obviously, feel free to use it. Otherwise, I recommend caution, and feel it's a better witness to use sources for which we can feel confident.

Friday, March 3, 2017

Bubbles of Abiogenesis

Proponents of molecules-to-milliner evolution are still having problems overcoming the original hurdle: the origin of life. Some even try to rework the failed Miller-Urey experiment, and others try to find different ways to justify the non-science of abiogenesis. One desperate idea was to invoke a kind of intelligent design by space aliens. Oh, please! 

Liquid droplet story of abiogenesis fails
Image credit: Pixabay / Alexas_Fotos
Some owlhoots try to distance themselves by resorting to the canard that the origin of life has nothing to do with evolution. Sure, pilgrim. You want us to spot you the most difficult part, and then you'll take the bit in your teeth and run with it from there. Claiming that abiogenesis (also known as chemical evolution) is irrelevant is, I believe, blatantly dishonest, since they should know that the origin of life is in evolution textbooks, on documentaries, and so on.

Denying relevance of abiogenesis. Lying, stupid, or something else?
Used under Fair Use provisions for educational purposes
A more rational idea involves primordial liquid droplets. They're sort of like bubbles, but do not have air. These droplets contain materials that could maybe somehow someday bring forth primitive life. This contains a great deal of Creator-denying wishful thinking, presumptions that common-ancestor evolution did happen, and assuming they know the conditions of Earth way back yonder — a subject that scientists are still scrapping about. Let's take a look at what the droplet people are doing wrong.
Life? How did something so complex begin? Biological observations all show that life only comes from life. (This is called biogenesis.) Nevertheless, evolutionists confidently tell us that life evolved from nonliving chemicals through random natural processes.

Believing life began through abiogenesis despite the lack of observable scientific support, evolutionary scientists naturally search for ways to show how this could have happened. One of their latest notions suggests that the barrier between living cells and their surroundings got its start in self-replicating liquid droplets.
To read the rest, click on "Liquid Droplets Begat Life?